August 2, 2016| Orange County, California

CWLA 2016 National ConferenceAdvancing Excellence in Practice & Policy: What

Works For Families Affected by Substance Use

Regional Partnership Grants (RPG)

Collaborative Approaches: Lessons Learned from the RPG Program

Elaine Voces Stedt, MSW | Ken DeCerchio, M.S.W., CAP

Agenda• Introductions, Background and History of the RPG

Program• National Perspective and Context for Collaborative

Policy and Practice• RPG Program Highlights and Key Implementation

Lessons• Program Evaluation Lessons and Key Outcomes• Sustaining Regional Partnerships: Challenges and

Successes• Conclusion

This presentation is supported by:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Center for Substance Abuse Treatmentand the

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s BureauOffice on Child Abuse and Neglect

Points of view or opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the presenter(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the above stated federal

agencies.

Acknowledgement

Improving Family

OutcomesStrengthening Partnerships

Background and National Perspective Elaine Voces Stedt, MSW

Source: Children and Family Futures

Progress Since the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) 1997

National Center on Substance Abuse

and Child Welfare

Blending Perspectives and Building Common

Ground Congressional Report Established 5

National Goals

1997 1999 2002 20072005 2009 2010 20142012

Adoption and Safe Families

Act (ASFA)

Regional Partnership

Grants (RPG)

Fostering Connections

Grants

Substance Exposed Newborn

Grants

Family Drug Court Grants

Children Affected by

Methamphetamine Grants (CAM)

RPG 2

RPG 3

In-Depth Technical

Assistance Substance Exposed Infants

FDC Statewide System Reform

Program

Prevention and Family Recovery

(PFR)

2017

Building collaborative relationships

Assuring timely access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment services

Improving our ability to engage and retain clients in care and to support ongoing recovery

Enhancing children’s services

Filling information gaps

Leadership of the Federal Government -Five National Goals Established

1. Differences in values and perceptions of primary client2. Timing differences in service systems3. Knowledge gaps4. Lack of tools for effective engagement in services5. Intervention and prevention needs of children6. Lack of effective communication7. Data and information gaps8. Categorical and rigid funding streams as well as treatment

gaps

Five National Reports Issued on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Child Welfare: Summary of Challenges and Recommendations, http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/Summary5NationaReports2.pdf

Identified Barriers

1. Develop principles for working together2. Create on-going dialogues and efficient communication3. Develop cross-training opportunities4. Improve screening, assessment and monitoring practice and

protocols5. Develop funding strategies to improve timely treatment access6. Expand prevention services to children7. Develop improved cross-system data collection

Suggested Strategies

Five National Reports Issued on Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Child Welfare: Summary of Challenges and Recommendations, http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/Summary5NationaReports2.pdf

What do we mean by Cross-System Collaboration ?

Cross-System Collaboration

Policy and Practice

Values - Why are We here? Why are You Here?

Judicial OversightEqual Protection

SafetyProtection

HopeRecovery

CWS Court SA-MH

Outcomes

10. Shared Outcomes and Systems Reforms

System Elements

6. Information Systems 7. Training and System Tools

8. Budget and Sustainability

9. Working with Other Agencies

Children, Family, Tribal, and Community Services

2. Screening and Assessment

3. Engagement and Retention 4. Services for Children 5. Community and Family

Support

Mission

1. Underlying Values and Priorities

ELEMENTS OF SYSTEM LINKAGES:10-ELEMENT FRAMEWORK

Improving the outcomes of children and families affected by parental substance use requires a coordinated response which draw from the talents and resources of at least three systems: • Child Welfare

• Substance Abuse Treatment

• Courts

Better together

No Single Agency Can Do This Alone

http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/files/SAFERR.pdf

Screening and Assessment for Family Engagement, and Recovery (SAFERR)

To download a copy, please visit:

• A collaborative model to help child welfare, substance use treatment, and family court professionals and other key stakeholders make better informed decisions

• While SAFERR suggests standards of practice within each of the three systems, its focus is on the connections, communications, and collaborative capacities across them.

Regional Partnership Grants (RPGs)

A Program of the Administration on

Children, Youth and FamiliesChildren’s Bureau

Office on Child Abuse and Neglect

Regional Partnership Grants (RPGs)

Authorized by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)

- 53 RPGs were awarded by the Children’s Bureau in September, 2007: $145 million over 5 years

The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-34) signed into law Sept. 30, 2011

- 17 RPGs were awarded in September 2012- Also awarded 2-year extension grants to eight of the original regional

partnership grantees- 4 RPGs were awarded in October 2014

RPG Program – Background

Congress required HHS to develop:• A set of performance indicators through broad consultation with the field

and grantees;• Partnerships with child welfare and substance abuse treatment

providers; and,• An annual report on the “services provided and activities conducted…the

progress made addressing the needs of families and performance indicators established to assess performance.”

Reports to Congress:The First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports to Congress can be retrieved

from:http://www.cffutures.org/projects/regional-partnership-grants.

Support for Grantees

ACF awarded a support contract to the Center for Children and Family Futures (CCFF) to:

Refine and develop final set of RPG performance indicators

Develop a RPG Data Collection and Reporting System

Provide technical assistance (TA) to grantees on evaluation, data collection and reporting, and other performance measurement matters and programmatic issues

Each grantee had a team of twoFederal Project Officers (FPOs) and a

Performance Management Liaison (PML)

Establish or enhance a

collaborative infrastructure to

build the region's capacity

Address common systemic and

practice challenges

Improve the safety,

permanency, and well-being of

children affected by substance abuse in child

welfare

RPG Program Purpose

RPG Program Overview

Ken DeCerchio, MSW, CAP

Overview of RPGS

The 53 grantee lead agencies were based in 29 States and included 6 Tribes

• Agencies represented a wide range of governmental and private sector organizations representing child welfare, substance abuse treatment, the courts and other child and family services entities

Overall membership was broad, extending well beyond the two-partner minimum legislative requirement

• State child welfare agency was a required partner

Regional Partnership Grantee Locations – Round 1 (n=53)

RPG Round III: 4 sitesRPG Round II: 17 sites RPG Round I Extension: 8 sites

RPG-II, III MAP 2014-2015

RPG II AND III STRATEGIES

• Expanded target population and eligibility criteria • Expanding service locations• Improving parent engagement skills through Motivational

Interviewing • Conduct client focus groups to improve service delivery • The use of Peer Recovery Supports - Recovery Coaches/Specialists

and family navigators • Active Collaborative/Advisory Committees• Meetings with CW supervisors to build partnerships• Meetings with community or state leaders to address issues

impacting their implementation

• Using data to improve and sustain programming • Implementation of EBPs -Adapting, changing or adding to

best serve families• Changing and adapting EBPs – several factors identified

including difficulty obtaining training, not a match for the target population presenting for services

• Modifying or re-bidding current contracts• Create and maintained a strong Implementation Team• Conducting a drop-off analysis • Continued community training, education, and

engagement

Strategies Cont.…

Geographic Area Served and Target Populations

• 48 grantees (91 percent) provided services to families in a specified region

• Nearly all (92 percent) provided services to both in-home (at risk of removal) and out-of-home cases

• Programs addressed methamphetamine as well as other types of substance abuse impacting their regions and target populations

Some grantees emphasized specific subpopulations (e.g., pregnant and parenting

women, parents with children 0 to 5)

RPG Member Agencies Child Welfare, Substance Abuse,

Mental Health And Tribes

9.4%

9.4%

11.3%

32.1%

37.7%

47.2%

47.2%

54.7%

62.3%

73.6%

86.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tribe/Tribal Consortium (n=5)

Tribal Child Welfare Agency/Consortia (n=5)

Tribal Substance Abuse Agency (n=6)

State Substance Abuse Agency (n=17)

Child Welfare Services Provider (n=20)

Regional/County Substance Abuse Agency (n=25)

State Child Welfare Agency (n=25)

State/County Mental Health Agency (n=29)

Mental Health Services Provider (n=33)

Regional/County Child Welfare Agency (n=39)

Substance Abuse Treatment Provider (n=46)

76% of Grantees had 10 or more partners in their collaborative

RPG Member Agencies Courts And Criminal Justice

And Legal System

15.1%

17.0%

17.0%

17.0%

20.8%

22.6%

24.5%

30.2%

32.1%

41.5%

66.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other Criminal Justice/Drug Task Force (n=8)

Drug Endangered Children (DEC) (n=9)

Juvenile Justice Agency (n=9)

Office of State Courts/CIP (n=9)

Attorneys General (n=11)

State/County Corrections (n=12)

Local Law Enforcement (n=13)

Court Appointed Special Advocates - CASA (n=16)

Dependency or Other Court*/Tribal Court (n=17)

Attorneys/Legal Services/Client Advocacy (n=22)

Family Treatment Drug Court/DDC (n=35)

*Other court includes criminal court, adult drug court or mental health court

RPG Member Agencies Other Community And Supportive Services

58.5%

30.2%

34.0%

35.8%

37.7%

43.4%

52.8%

60.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other Community Child/Family Service Providers***(n=31)

Home Visiting (n=16)

Education Agencies or Schools** (n=18)

Domestic Violence Services (n=19)

Housing Agencies or Service Providers (n=20)

Employment Agencies or Service Providers (n=23)

Parenting or Early Childhood Education/Services*(n=28)

Child/Adult Health Services Agencies or Providers(n=32)

*Also includes early childhood coalitions or councils**Includes state departments of education, schools or school districts, and colleges or universities***Includes church/faith-based organizations, peer/parent networks, and other child and family direct service providers not otherwise specified

Families Served

53 Grant Programs 25,541 children17,820 adults

15,031 families

(through September 30, 2012)

RPG Program Highlights and Key Implementation Lessons

Collaboration is essential to address the complex and multiple needs of families and sustain integrated service delivery

Collaboration to establish cross-systems linkages and effective sustainability planning takes time and is developmental and iterative in nature

Broadening the partnership beyond child welfare and substance abuse treatment to work with other community agencies is critical to securing important core treatment and supportive services

RPG I: KEY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

“I’ve been involved with criminal type cases and juvenile and dependency cases for 30 years. I was a cynic to the idea of the [RPG] to begin with. … Now, with this collaboration, I see different people in six months than when people came in. Their attitudes are different and their joy of life is back.” - RPG FDC Judge

• Intensive multi-faceted outreach is needed at the client, partner, agency, and community levels

• The collaborative must continually assess its progress and adapt its program and services to meet families’ unmet and emerging needs and facilitate client engagement and retention

RPG I: KEY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

“At first I didn’t want to come [to treatment] and I didn’t want to stop using, but [the outreach worker] came knocking on my door every day, telling me I was going to make it to treatment no matter what. She would do whatever it took to get me involved. . . She’s changed my whole life.” - RPG Program Participant

Treating the family system—rather than an individual child or parent in isolation—is far more effective in addressing a family’s underlying and complex issues. Over the course of the grant, grantees moved from individual-focused services to more comprehensive family-centered treatment

RPG I: KEY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

LESSONS

“When you look at child welfare, there's a single child that they're focusing on…They wouldn't necessarily look at the needs of another child. And that other child wouldn't get services, even though they need them.” Through case management services, this grantee was able to connect children throughout the entire county to needed services.

• Clear roles, responsibilities, and expectations are required of partners, providers, and families to promote both individual and shared accountability.

• Ongoing communication, information sharing, monitoring, and supervision are crucial at both the systems and direct service levels.

• The importance of staffing issues in [developing, achieving, building] collaborative capacity cannot be underestimated, particularly for programs working in sparsely populated, rural areas. Staff training and development need to be a key project component in larger implementation and sustainability plans.

RPG I: KEY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

“The most important thing I learned is that one cannot spend too much time planning ahead and setting up a clear line (chain) of communication and accountability. When entering such a partnership, there must be an agreed outcome or goal.” -Grantee

• The partnership and program need to be integrated into other existing systems’ efforts and infrastructures and leverage all available resources to facilitate sustainability

• The larger economic and fiscal environment has a notable impact on collaborative service delivery and sustainability planning efforts

RPG I: KEY PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

“At the start[…we were] fully aware of the critical need to develop a sustainability plan [.] However, no one could predict the degree to which the economic downturn would affect funding, resources, and policies at both the state and local level[-] it became evident that options were limited in terms of raising the funds necessary for sustaining [RPG] program services beyond the award period.”

- Grantee

Program Performance Indicators

5Rs

How Collaborative Policy and Practice Impact

Recovery

Remain at home

Reunification

Re-occurrence

Re-entry

• RPG adults accessed treatment quickly:• Within 13 days of entering RPG program,

on average

• 36.4% entered treatment within 3 days

• Participants remained in treatment a median of 4.8 months

• 65.2% stayed in treatment more than 90 days

• 45.0% completed treatment*

* Includes discharges for treatment completion and transferred to another facility and known to report to continue further treatment. Federal treatment outcome reporting

considers such transfers a successful discharge.

Recovery

Promoting And Sustaining Recovery

From substance abuse treatment admission to discharge:

• The majority of adults – between 61.1 and 76.2 percent, depending on the substance – reduced their use of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin*

• The percentage of adults employed (full or part time) increased significantly from 22.8 percent to 41.3 percent

• 80.0 percent reported decreased criminal behavior (among adults with any recent arrests prior to treatment admission)

Additional Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes

* Among adults who reported any substance use in the past 30 days at treatment admission

• 92.0% of children who were in custody of their parent or caregiver at time of RPG program enrollment remained at home through RPG program case closure

• The percentage of children who remained at home significantly increased through program implementation from 85.1% in Year 1 to 96.4% in Year 5

Remainin Home

Children return home and remain at homeSafety and Permanency Outcomes(Median Performance)

Children in RPG Program

State Contextual Data

Percentage of Children who had Substantiated Maltreatment within Six Months after RPG Program Enrollment (N=22,558)

4.2% 5.8%

Discharge to Reunification – Median Length of Stay in Foster Care (N=3,340)

9.5 months 7.5 months

Percentage of Children Reunified in Less than 12 Months (N=3,627) 63.6% 69.4%

Percentage of Children Reunified who Re-entered Foster Care in Less than 12 Months (N=3,575)

5.1% 13.1%

Discharge to Finalized Adoption – Median Length of Stay in Foster Care (N=418)

24.2 months 29.3 months

• 4,078 children were discharged from foster care – 83.0% to reunification

• Median length of stay for reunified children: 9.5 months

• Percentage reunified within 12 months: 63.6%

• 17.9% were reunified in less than 3 months

• Timely reunification increased significantly from 55.4% in Year 1 to 72.9% in Year 4

• Infants and young children (< 1 year) had significantly higher rates of reunification within 12 months (72.7%) than children of all other ages (61.5%)

Reunification

• 4.2% - percentage of Children who had Substantiated Maltreatment within Six Months after RPG Program Enrollment (N=22,558)

vs 5.8% Contextual State Data (2011)

NCANDS/AFCARS median results for the states in which the RPG programs are operating. The state contextual data are not intended to serve as a comparison group for the RPG Program and do not allow for statistical comparisons to RPG participants.

Recidivism

• 5.1% - percentage of Children Reunified who Re-entered Foster Care in Less than 12 Months (N=3,575)

vs. 13.1% - Contextual State Data (2011)

NCANDS/AFCARS median results for the states in which the RPG programs are operating. The state contextual data are not intended to serve as a comparison group for the RPG Program and do not allow for statistical comparisons to RPG participants.

Re-Entry

• Parents/caregivers achieved timely access to substance abuse treatment, stayed in treatment (on average, more than 90 days), and reported reduced substance use

• The majority of children at risk of removal remained in their parent’s custody

• Most children in out-of-home placement achieved timely reunifications with their parent(s)

• After returning home, very few children re-entered foster care

• Overall child, adult, and family well-being improved from RPG program admission to discharge (for the subset of grantees who measured child well-being)

Recap

R5s

FAMILY WELL-BEING OUTCOMES

From RPG program admission to discharge, the percentage of parents for whom overall:*

Family interactionswas rated a strength significantly increased from 21.8 percent to 47.0 percentEnvironment (e.g., a family’s overall stability and safety in their home and community) was rated a strength significantly increased from 18.4 percent to 41.5 percentFamily safety was rated a strength significantly increased from 17.2 percent to 41.0 percent

p. <.001

* Data represent a subset of 8-10 grantees reporting these NCFAS data

Child Well-being OutcomesPercentage of Children for Whom Selected NCFAS Child Well-Being Areas were Rated a

Mild/Clear Strength at RPG Program Admission and Discharge

RPG Program Admission RPG Program Discharge

Relationship with Parents (N=724) 32.5% 56.8%

Mental Health (N=558) 27.9% 52.1%Behavior (N=714) 26.9% 49.1%

Cooperation (N=703) 45.5% 66.0%Relationship with Siblings (N=532) 40.9% 59.4%

School Performance (N=523) 21.2% 39.6%Relationship with Peers (N=486) 28.9% 45.7%

p<.001 for all itemsNotes: Data represent the subset of eight grantees reporting these NCFAS data.

PARENTING CAPACITY OUTCOMES

From RPG program admission to discharge:*• The percentage of parents for whom overall parental

capabilities was rated a strength significantly increased from 14.9 percent to 46.5 percent

• Similarly, the percentage for whom overall parental capabilities was rated a problem significantly declined from 51.0 percent to 20.4 percent

• Parents showed the most progress in no or decreased substance use and appropriate supervision of children

p. <.001

* Data represent a subset of 8-10 grantees reporting these NCFAS data

•Overall child, adult, and family well-being improved from RPG program admission to discharge (for the subset of grantees who measured child well-being)

•Selected performance measures improved steadily over the course of the grant period, indicating it takes adequate time to establish effective, broad-based cross-systems collaboration and comprehensive, integrated services to facilitate positive family outcomes

Overall Performance Measurement Results

Grantee Interviews: 8 Grantees’ Reflections

Grantee Selection

• Leadership shown by program staff

• Implementation of innovative program strategies

• Use of data to drive decisions and improve services

• Exceptional efforts to develop and maintain the cross-system collaborative

• Sustainability of services

• Services to children

Key Findings

• Leadership

• Collaborative Practice

• Services to Children and Families

• Impact on Broader Systems

• Evaluation and Data

• Sustainability

• RPG Program as a Learning Experience

Leadership

• The collaborative needs a strong leader

• Engage leaders who are decision makers in their own organizations

• Identify a Champion

• Address and lead sustainability planning

“It’s all relationship based and based on trust. And we had five years to develop that sort of trust and support and we needed it!”

Collaborative Practice• Engage and convene stakeholders/partners during the planning of

the grant• Identify and engage the right partners• Establish trust at all levels• Formalize the partnership• Identify the goals of the collaborative and revisit these goals• Eliminate the silos• Develop a process for conflict resolution

“I can tell you that when I started my career in the district office as a child abuse investigator, there was no way that I would have thought of bringing in someone from the treatment world out on an investigation with me. You just wouldn't do that, because we needed to make sure kids were safe.”

Services to Children and Families

• Family Centered

• Partner with early childhood service providers

• Maintain and strengthen bonds between parents and children

“I also know that before I knew anything about treatment, and I was doing child abuse and neglect, I wrote treatment plans all of the time that set-up a family for failure, because I didn’t understand that substance dependence was a chronic relapsing disease. And I didn’t understand that people could parent their children and still struggle with addiction. Both things could be true.”

Impact on Broader Systems• Prioritize child welfare clients in need of substance abuse

treatment services• Impact child welfare policy regarding reunification timelines• Influence the system through additional requirements in contracts• Increase recognition that the same clients are seen across systems• Increase availability of evidence-based programs• Facilitate statewide engagement

“If you are involved in the child welfare system, and you have a substance abuse issue, you are at the top of the list to be served. That certainly helps, because there is not enough money at all to reach the demand we have in our state.”

Evaluation And Data

• Use data to inform direct practice• Use data to facilitate broader system change• Recognize the challenges of data collection and evaluation

“We made sure that they kept knowing what we were doing and what the data were showing.”

Sustainability• Formalize infrastructure

• Consider all funding strategies for sustainability

• Identify billable services

RPG Implementation as aLearning Experience

“I think the process that was rolled out through the RPG was a very collaborative process. It role-modeled collaboration, and it helped us move to being more collaborative, or thinking through different strategies than we wouldn’t have if we were just handed money and told to go forth and do the same. I could call anyone across the United States and connect with them and have a conversation about some idea that they had implemented.”

What Did Extension Sites Tell Us –About Collaboration

Establish a Bi-Level Collaborative Structure Ensure Trust, Relationship Development, and Communication among Key Partners Develop a Common Language, and Remind Each Other of Shared Goals Implement Ongoing Efforts to Develop, Maintain, and Strengthen the Collaborative Partnership Collaborative Systems Change Takes Time Unanticipated Partners Can Strengthen a Collaborative and Lead to Important Connections

Sustaining Regional Partnerships: Challenges and Successes

Sustainability Barriers

Despite this context, grantees achieved a substantial level of success with sustaining at least part of their collaborative activities!

Key stakeholders • Lack of in-depth collaboration and relationships with key

stakeholders (community and state leadership) • Difficulty engaging state agencies and key leadership stakeholders

Engagement and Retention• Grantees reported challenges with turnover or retention in front-

line/direct service staff• Nearly two-thirds experienced turnover or retention difficulties with

key management or administrative positions

Sustainability Results

75.0% of the major services and activities provided as part of the grant were sustained

57.7% sustainedspecific components or a scaled down or modified version of their program model

28.8% sustained their project in its current form or model beyond their grant period

13.5% were not able to sustain any of their program

Facilitators of Sustainability

90.6 % moved to more

advanced stages of

collaboration

About 30% of grantees had

undertaken joint projects or

shared grants to sustain services

About 43.4% progressed to

change the rules for how families are

served

17% of grantees were

able to institutionalize RPG practices and services with system-

wide

Grantees who sustained their program component generally were able to institutionalize and integrate RPG practices into existing systems of care.

Shared D

DataUniversal Screening

Shared Case Plans

Better Outcomes for Children and

Families

Information Exchange

JointProjects

Changing the Rules

Changing the System

FOUR STAGES OF COLLABORATION

Sid Gardner, 1996Beyond Collaboration to Results

Getting Better at Getting Along

Stages of Collaboration and

Sustainability Results

• Of the 5 grantees who were in the preliminary stages of collaboration (information exchange), only 2 expected to sustain all/part of their model

• All 7 grantees who had attained the most advanced level of collaboration (changing the systems) sustained all (5 grantees) or part (2 grantees) of their program model

Successful Financing StrategiesWidening the definition of available or

potential resourcesConnecting with other related grants or

initiatives

Changing the business as usual practices to incorporate RPG innovations

Incorporating RPG efforts within their own agency

Integrating with other child welfare systems improvements

Transitioning services and staff to other partner organizations

Negotiating third party payments for what the grant had initiated

Joining with larger health care reform and care coordination efforts

Institutionalizing RPG practices into existing systems of care

Third-party billing, Medi-caid

Redirecting existing, currently funded resources to adopt new case management and client engagement strategies

Cost Studies: Promise and Challenge

•While recognizing importance of conducting a cost study, most did not include in local evaluation plans

•Many lacked knowledge, capacity, and collaborative relationships (budget staff), and financial and human resources

Nonetheless, almost one-third did a cost study or were in the process of conducting one!

Cost Studies: Promise and Challenge

• The program saved approximately $16,340 in out-of-home care costs per child. Every $1.00 invested in the program yielded an average savings of $9.83

A Strengthening Families Program found the typical program child participant spent 190 fewer days in out-of-home care

• In program year four, the grantee found 16.9 percent of children in the RPG program had petitions filed compared to 33.6 percent of comparison group children (the site estimated a per petition cost of $2,614)

A FDC site estimated more than $154,000 in annual cost avoidance related to filing of fewer dependency petitions

• The grantee reported a cost savings of approximately $313,300 to the foster care system

One site calculated a total of 19,318 days in foster care were saved by allowing parents to reunite with their children more quickly

Cost Studies: Promise and Challenge

•One grantee reported cost avoidance of $3.51 million to $6.75 million in out-of-home care costs as result of their program. For every $1.00 spent on the program, the State avoids up to $2.52 on the cost of out-of-home care

RPG Round 1Dissemination:

Poster and One-pager

Conclusions: Rethinking

our Practice

ConclusionsConsidering the promising results reflected in the performance measurement of the RPG grants, the level of collaboration that most grantees achieved, and the extent to which most sites are sustain their services and collaborative activities, the RPG Program fulfilled the goals envisioned in the authorizing legislation.

PublicationsAkin, B., Brook, J., & Lloyd, M. (in press). Co-occurrence of parental substance abuse and child serious emotional disturbance: Forging multiple pathways to improved child and family outcomes. Child Welfare.

Boles, S. , Young, N. , Dennis, K. , & DeCerchio, K. (2012). The regional partnership grant (rpg) program: Enhancing collaboration, promising results. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 6(4), 482-496.

Brook, J., Mcdonald, T. P., & Yan, Y. (2012). An analysis of the impact of the Strengthening Families Program on family reunification in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 691-695.

Chappell, E. , Sielbeck-Mathes, K. , Reiserer, R. , Wohltjen, H. , Wendyshuran, E. , et al. (2015). Effects of intensive family preservation services in rural tennessee on parental hopefulness with families affected by substance use. Child Welfare, 94(5), 187.

Chasnoff, I. , Telford, E. , Wells, A. , & King, L. (2015). Mental health disorders among children within child welfare who have prenatal substance exposure: Rural vs. urban populations. Child Welfare,94(4), 53.

Dennis, K. , Rodi, M. , Robinson, G. , DeCerchio, K. , Young, N. , et al. (2015). Promising results for cross-systems collaborative efforts to meet the needs of families impacted by substance use. Child Welfare, 94(5), 21.

Hall, M. , Huebner, R. , Sears, J. , Posze, L. , Willauer, T. , et al. (2015). Sobriety treatment and recovery teams in rural appalachia: Implementation and outcomes. Child Welfare, 94(4), 119.

Huebner, R. , Posze, L. , Willauer, T. , & Hall, M. (2015). Sobriety treatment and recovery teams: Implementation fidelity and related outcomes. Substance Use & Misuse, 50(10), 1341.

Huebner, R., Willauer, T., & Posze, L. (2012). The impact of Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Teams (START) on family outcomes. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93(3), 196-203.

Motoyama, M. J., Brook, J., Yan, Y., & McDonald, T. P. (2013). Cost analysis of the strengthening families program in reducing time to family reunification in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 244-252.

Pollock, M. , & Green, S. (2015). Effects of a rural family drug treatment court collaborative on child welfare outcomes: Comparison using propensity score analysis. Child Welfare, 94(4), 139.

Thompson, S. , Thompson, Roper, C. , & Peveto, L. (2013). Parenting in recovery program: Participant responses and case examples. Child Welfare, 92(1), 139.

74

Resources

2015 Special Issue

www.cwla.org

Families in Child Welfare Affected by Substance Use

http://www.cwla.org/child-welfare-journal/cwj-featured-issues/

Understanding Substance Use and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Child Welfare Works

https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/training/default.aspx

https://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/

Additional Resources

1. Understanding Substance Abuse and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Child Welfare Workers

2. Understanding Child Welfare and the Dependency Court: A Guide for Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals

3. Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment and Family Recovery: A Guide for Legal Professionals

NCSACW Online Tutorials

Free CEUs!

Updated September 2015: New content including updates on

opioids and Family Drug Courts!

https://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/training/default.aspx

Elaine Voces Stedt, MSWDirector, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect Children’s Bureau Administration on Children, Youth and FamiliesEmail: Elaine.stedt@acf.hhs.govCB Website: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb

Ken DeCerchio, MSW, CAPProgram Director, Children and Family FuturesNational Center on Substance Abuse and Child WelfarePhone: 1-866-493-2758Email: kdecerchio@cffutures.orgNCSACW Website: http://ncsacw.samhsa.gov

Contact Information